You are here

Federal Judge Blocks Recreational Snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park

Share

Will there be recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone this winter? NPS photo.

A federal judge, ruling that Yellowstone National Park's decision to continue recreational snowmobile use in the park runs counter to science and the National Park Service's conservation mission, has tossed out the park's winter-use plan.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan's ruling, while sure to spur more legal battles, throws in doubt whether there will be recreational snowmobiling in Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks when the winter season gets under way in mid-December.

"We've got to figure out what it means. We don't know where we go from here," Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said this afternoon. "The judge was very clear that he took issue with some of our analysis and decision-making. It's up to our winter-use planning staff and Justice Department attorneys to study this so we know how to move forward."

In his 63-page ruling, which was stinging at times in its criticism of the Park Service's interpretation of its own Organic Act, Judge Sullivan held that while the Organic Act does call for public enjoyment of the national parks, "(T)his is not blanket permission to have fun in the parks in any way the NPS sees fit."

"As plaintiffs articulated at the hearing, the 'enjoyment' referenced in the Organic Act is not enjoyment for its own sake, or even enjoyment of the parks generally, but rather the enjoyment of 'the scenery and natural and historic objects and wild life' in the parks in a manner that will allow future generations to enjoy them as well," wrote Judge Sullivan in today's ruling. "NPS cannot circumvent this limitation through conclusory declarations that certain adverse impacts are acceptable, without explaining why those impacts are necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the park."

The winter-use plan was challenged by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, the Winter Wildlands Alliance, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“This ruling reaffirms the idea at the heart of our National Park System—that the duty of Yellowstone’s managers is to preserve the park for the sake of all visitors, and to place the highest value on protection of Yellowstone’s unique natural treasures,” said Tim Stevens, senior Yellowstone Program Manager for NPCA.

“This ruling will ensure that visitors are not disappointed by air and noise pollution when they make the one winter trip to Yellowstone of their lives,” said Amy McNamara, National Parks Program Director for the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. “We take our hats off to the tour businesses that didn’t wait for this ruling. Their increasing investments in modern snowcoaches are already making it possible for winter visitors to access and enjoy Yellowstone while protecting it.”

At the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, leaders were calling for Yellowstone and National Park Service officials to accept the judge's ruling and work harder to protect the parks' resources.

"They should be quietly praising this whole thing instead of continuing to obfuscate the whole question in my judgment," said Bill Wade, who chairs the coalition's executive council. "It should be very clear where they go from here.”

Mr. Wade said Yellowstone Superintendent Suzanne Lewis should have the authority to pass an emergency rule to allow a limited amount of snowmobiling in the park this year while her staff moves to develop a winter-use plan in line with Judge Sullivan's ruling.

That said, the coalition believes snowcoaches -- not snowmobiles -- should transport winter visitors in Yellowstone because the coaches are safe, quieter, less polluting, and less impacting to wildlife than snowmobiles.

During the past 11 years the Yellowstone snowmobiling saga has seesawed back and forth. While the Clinton administration on its way out of office issued a directive that snowmobile use be phased out of the park, the Bush administration immediately stayed that when it took office.

A series of legal challenges -- some by conservation groups, some by snowmobile advocates such as the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association -- alternately pulled the Park Service in opposite directions. The latest decision came last November, when Yellowstone officials approved a plan to allow up to 540 snowmobiles and 83 snowcoaches per day into the park -- despite research that concluded such levels would impact park resources.

When the coalition of conservation groups announced its legal challenge to the plan, it noted that the Park Service disclosed in a study accompanying its decision that allowing 540 snowmobiles into Yellowstone each day would dramatically expand to 63 square miles-the portion of the park where visitors could expect to hear snowmobile noise during more than half of the visiting day. That would be a three-fold increase from the current portion of the park where noise intrudes on the visitor’s experience during at least half the day.

The groups also noted that in its Final Environmental Impact Study accompanying its decision, the Park Service acknowledged that Congress established the National Park Service in 1916 in part due to a recognition that the American people “wanted places to go that were undisturbed and natural and which offered a retreat from the rigors and stresses of everyday life.”

Judge Sullivan found more than a few problems with the National Park Service's conclusions in approving the winter-use plan (WUP). Among them:

* The court finds that NPS fails to articulate why the WUP's impacts are 'acceptable.' NPS simply repeats the above standards in the context of the WUP's impacts on soundscapes, wildlife, and air quality, but fails to provide any supporting analysis of how the impacts relate to those standards.

* The ROD (record of decision) makes no effort to explain, for example, why impacts on soundscapes characterized as 'major and adverse' do not 'unreasonably interfere with the soundscape' and cause an unacceptable impact.

* Similarly, NPS fails to explain why increasing the amount of benzene and formaldehyde to levels that broach (and sometimes exceed) the minimum risk levels applicable to hazardous waste sites does not 'create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or employees.'

* ... NPS provides no quantitative standard or qualitative analysis to support its conclusions that the adverse impacts of the WUP are 'acceptable.'

* As with soundscapes and wildlife, the court finds that NPS has failed to articulate why a plan that will admittedly worsen air quality complies with the conservation mandate.

In his conclusion, Judge Sullivan found that the winter-use plan "clearly elevates use over conservation of park resources and values and fails to articulate why the plan's 'major adverse impacts' are 'necessary and appropriate to fulfill the purposes of the park."

"NPS fails to explain how increasing snowmobile usage over current conditions, where adaptive management thresholds are already being exceeded, complies with the conservation mandate of the Organic Act," he wrote.

While this ruling was being digested today, Yellowstone's winter-use planners were joined by Department of Justice attorneys in Cheyenne, Wyoming, before U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer. Judge Brimmer, who in the past has ruled almost completely opposite Judge Sullivan on the snowmobile issue, was conducting a hearing into a lawsuit brought by the state of Wyoming and Park County, Wyoming, over the winter-use plan's 540-snowmobile-per-day limit as well as its requirement that snowmobilers be led by commercial guides.

Comments

Yellowstone Superintendent Suzanne Lewis, National Park Service Director Mary Bomar and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne each wholly deserve this finely worded 63-page bitch slap, IMHO.
Reads to me like Judge Sullivan did his homework.

To read up on this years long SNAFU click here. (I find the reader comments most entertaining :-))


Ted,

The current plan calls for snowmobiles to be accompanied by a guide and that they be 4-stroke. So, if that isn't good enough, it's not clear what would satisfy the judge in this case.

On the science of noise and snowmobiles, I defer to others. Whether snowmobiles or any other vehicle should be allowed is one question, but that the government here put in plans that went against their own scientific advice (even from the EPA) is really the stink bomb that is behind the success of this lawsuit. (And, throw in Cody, where the Park Service basically got pushed around - by Cheney, apparently - into keeping Sylvan Pass open against their own better judgment - now all moot apparently by this order).

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World


No vehicles should be allowed in any national park. Park all them RVs and cars at the entrance and walk in! You wanna see Old Faithful? Hop on a mule.


Jim,

Ah - I knew that all snowmobiles are guided (which surely goes a long way to tamp down the yee-haw! factor), but not the 4-stroke requirement. I understand that models tuned for smooth riding, durability & economy (rental machines) are similar to automobiles in emissions.

Agreed, as Park management is bound by a science-evaluation protocol, if they ignored their own science reports (which were otherwise adequate & appropriate), then they can get rapped.

And yes, it does look like more than one question in play; distinct issues of science, philosophy and politics all morphing back & forth and being passed off as one.


While I applaud the decision as such, I see a huge problem coming up from it. This decision is not about the use of snowmobiles in the first place, it is about sloppy decision making in the NPS and even sloppier documentation of those decisions. Administrations decisions must be documented in such way that (judicial) oversight is possible. This was obviously lacking here (and in many, many other cases), most probably because the decision was in conflict with the data and could not have been based on any sound reasoning.

The danger is, that proper decision making and documentation could be confused with more bureaucracy. Nothing is gained if NPS staff is told to spend more time on their desks writing lengthy legal briefs to cover their asses in future decisions.


Anon,

My, how you like to make assumptions and read falsehoods into my words!

You’re looking at your first “band-wagon jumper” right here. The reason more folks haven’t piped up yet is that we’re all pretty busy fighting our own battles >2K mile away from Yellowstone. There are striking similarities to the issues, hence my post. The difference in reaction that you reference is probably due to the fact that nearly everyone in this country owns a vehicle, where snowmobiles are fairly specialized. Also, not too many folks can take their family of four somewhere on a snowmobile.

My opinion of the use of single judges is simply that. My opinion. We don’t necessarily have to agree on that issue. However, your vehemence is certainly unwelcome. Telling another adult individual to “grow up” merely detracts from the debate, and makes the author of said words seem all the more childish themselves.

My point is this: If they start banning access to areas for any reason, then look out. Pedestrian access can be proven to be detrimental to species just as easily as motorized access.

And finally, I absolutely refuse to call the Hatteras Island NPS unit anything but CNHSRA! The simple existence of it, and the curious way the designation has come and gone is somewhat central to our battle, and completely symbolic to it. I know of thousands of folks who refer to it as such, regardless of NPS nomenclature. If it offends you, I suggest you skip reading my and others posts where that acronym is present.


Anonymous proclaimed:

"Park all them RVs and cars at the entrance ... Hop on a mule.

You're joking. On multiple levels. One certainly hopes.

The process by which the obese, the old, the diabetic & otherwise health-challenged, the flat-footed, the deskbound, the harried, and yes, the lazy are disenfranchised from the Parks is a fantasy. Hallucination. Delusion?

There are in all likelihood going to be more forms and higher levels of vehicular usage in the Parks' future, not less. "The Science" will prevail, leading to the minimization of "objective" problems with motorized transport. 'Personal issues' and 'religious views' won't compute.

Mules? Egad. Have you ever been around areas with high levels of livestock & riding animals? Care to guess what the fuel-economy and emissions levels of horse-culture looks like? The landscape effects of churning hooves? Take 2 aspirin and call the doctor in the morning.

ATVs and snowmobiles are the leading edge of an epochal transformation of human mobility, and they are destined especially for the Parks. Subject to reasonable management.


The car has done one good thing for Yellowstone. Because people travel further and faster over a day, there are far fewer structures and buildings in Yellowstone than there used to be. The theory for awhile has been to horde large crowds of people into fewer areas so that the larger area of the park is protected at the sacrifice for the few. So, Old Faithful in particular is the sacrificial lamb.

None of these questions is very simple. It's what happens when a natural place is artificially set aside to prevent people from following their natural instincts. It's never easy to play God.

Snowmobiles certainly have no right to be in Yellowstone, but denying them access doesn't really do anything much to go at the larger problems. I'm not even convinced the air will be cleaner, if it means that visitation simply transfers to the restricted access and monopolized snow coach industry and if more and more cars (like mine) keep using the north of the park in the winter. If roads are still being groomed, what difference will it make to wildlife and the bison who continue to leave the park to face hazing and slaughter? I'll be glad if they are gone for a lot of personal reasons, but I've never understood the amount of passion over the issue without an equal amount of passion on the larger Yellowstone issues.

Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.